The criteria here is what is intrusive, speculative, unfair. Jim with a frying pan for a helmet is fine I guess ....lol.... but dissing ex-wives is not. There is no better compass than our own conscience

But honestly, the displeasure on his face is so evident even with ANY paps pics, why would WE, of all people want it? Doesn't he make everyone here smile?? They why would we say 'could you please go to hell for a few minutes so we could have fun'. Beats me.
-

'People' is a tabloid. 'Ok' is a tabloid. Almost everything with celeb info and gossip is considered a market for tabloid photographers and journalists. We are saturated with it all. We all fall for it, we all buy it.

But what I will not accept are those who purchase and privately relish the tabloid news, and then turn around and discourage or censor others who want to pass on that same information to other fans. Its hippocrisy at its finest.

Yes, we care about Jim. Hopefully in an abstract way. He is never going to 'be our friend', if thats what we're hoping by taking the moral high ground.

We do care that he makes us happy. We care that his movies are entertaining. But remember that he is living very comfortably and fulfilling his dreams simply because we have cared enough to pay plenty of money to allow him to continue to do so.

His 'image' and his 'characters' are a product. We are the consumers. Its all a business transaction, plain and simple.

I do not say that we have an absolute right to access his public 'image' nor do I believe we have an absolute 'right to know' about his or any other celebs life.

But if he does or is involved in interesting stuff deemed worthy of publication and one of us gains access to it, then I believe we should be allowed to freely distribute the information on this site without fear of recourse.

Take as an example JC's recent trip to Israel. This news got us all foaming at the mouth for some fresh news and photos after such a long drought. Granted we didn't get much, as he seemed to be more than slippery on this trip. But it was not because of tabloids. He took the necessary security precautions worthy of any public figure of his status, in a dangerously tumultous land. Could you imagine the worldwide publicity in this climate of terrorism if someone got to him for the purpose of making a political point to the West?! A few photographers were the least of his worries!! In LA, its different. More at home, more freedom of movement.

Maybe we should add another forum section titled "Tabloid Gossip" with an 'Enter at your own risk' disclaimer. If you dont want to read it because of your own conscience, then you have been warned. It may be the only way to go on this one.

Whew!! Y'all have to admit this has all been very thought provoking and lively!! I just wish this debate was not left hidden in this 'No. 23' forum, and was allowed to continue as its own topic so everyone on this site can find it and add to it. I just hope some changes can come of it, to improve information access on the site.

some great points Linda..........i know feelings are running high over this one but that's good.................debate is good...........we are all over the world with differring perspectives......
but we shouldn't let these feelings and ideas come between us folks.......but live and let live..........

So I guess that means I can put my pics of Jim and Betina on here and my pics of Jim on the beach and my pic of Jim walking down the street with Lauren etc... and if people tell me to take them off cause they are tabloid,like they did a year or 2 ago, I can tell them no they are not tabloid cause they are from PEOPLE? They print the same shit stories and pics that the Enquirer does. But because they are not made of newspaper mean they are not tabloid???

Wikipedia is like IMDB. ANYBODY can go on there and put their own definitions on there and like IMDB it is not always accurate.

cotton wrote:So I guess that means I can put my pics of Jim and Betina on here and my pics of Jim on the beach and my pic of Jim walking down the street with Lauren etc... and if people tell me to take them off cause they are tabloid,like they did a year or 2 ago, I can tell them no they are not tabloid cause they are from PEOPLE? They print the same shit stories and pics that the Enquirer does. But because they are not made of newspaper mean they are not tabloid???

You (the collective 'you') have access to this stuff - you own it, buy it, trade it, treasure it, without a second thought - and you obviously would love to share some of it with other fans!!! Whats so wrong with that?!?!?

I for one would love to see the stuff as noted above, because there is no way known that any of it will ever reach Oz (nor other parts of Europe, UK, South America et al )- thats why I come to this site.

In fact, I would even pay to gain access to a site that provides all of this published information, if it came down to it. Very seriously.

So please, for the benefit of all us fans, can we work out a way to get this stuff out there and keep this site going strong?

Last edited by Linda Marin on Sat May 13, 2006 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But what I will not accept are those who purchase and privately relish the tabloid news, and then turn around and discourage or censor others who want to pass on that same information to other fans. Its hippocrisy at its finest.

We never used to insult other posters for having a difference of opinion.